Fahey says Wilson, not Revis, took Baldwin out of Super Bowl

[Anthony!]

That's all great but again what you have not shown or proved is, is it truly Wilson or is it the game plan, play calling, or other players. Point in case last SB He did not even try a pass till half way through the 2nd qtr. The question was how much of that was play call, play design and how much was Wilson and how much was no one open. My issue is not what you are saying but the reality that we do not have enough info to see were, what or who is the problem. To just say its Wilson is very short sighted.

So you feel quite attributing 5-6 wins per year directly to Wilson vs ANY OTHER QB WE COULD TRADE FOR, and it's inarguable STATS and FACT, yet when he has two lousy performance that *continue a trend* of slow starts, you suddenly reach for excuses. It's the game plan. It's the other players. How short-sighted I must be to single out one guy when it's a team game...

Bunch of BS.

Actually if you read the link it said 5-6 compared to the avg QB, but lets not let the facts get in the way of the shall we. As to the rest again all you need to do is prove the reason for the slow starts is him and only him and not the game plan, the 25 scripted plays, play design, other players. Until you do you do not have much, but a lot of pent up aggression.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Actually if you read the link it said 5-6 compared to the avg QB, but lets not let the facts get in the way of the shall we. As to the rest again all you need to do is prove the reason for the slow starts is him and only him and not the game plan, the 25 scripted plays, play design, other players. Until you do you do not have much, but a lot of pent up aggression.

Whereas all you have to do is prove that Wilson is single-handedly responsible for the successes, which you haven't done, which is in fact my point:

You're happy to take a weak correlation as definite proof of the positives, but refuse to recognise the same in the negatives.

That means you are not rationally considering the areas in which Wilson requires improvement, whereas those of us in the "want to see more before committing 22 million/year and huge guarantees" club are looking at his positives but also, crucially, considering the negatives as well. Until he sorts out those negatives, I am not joining the "shut up and take my money" club.

This doesn't mean we hate anyone or have animosity or "pent up aggression". It just means we've taken a step back to look at the whole picture, and we've seen areas for concern.

 

[Willyeye]

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

Of course it's an average - I never presented it to be anything other than an average, hence "points per game". if you take overall points and divide ("per") by number of games, you get an average. Points per game IS AN AVERAGE.

"Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average.

If you want stats, then please look at the stats of the NFC Championship game, first half. Explain to me how digging that large a hole helped us win the game, and explain how our super-efficient offense kept the ball from Green Bay. Because what I saw is that if Green Bay had been able to convert their opportunities they would have stomped us. Our defense kept us in the game which allowed the miraculous comeback to happen.

Also please provide an explanation for how our passing game in the first half of the Super Bowl was consistent with the idea of establishing and maintaining a lead. Because what I saw was a QB who made rather poor choices, never utilized his tight ends, missed open receivers, and looked generally hesitant out there. Once again our defense kept us in the game and allowed a comeback that eventually failed, which is the way when you depend on comebacks to win games (which you shouldn't have to do with the #1 defense if your offense was worth a damn).

There is a very frustrating pattern of Wilson starting slow and digging a hole for us. Is it too much to want to see that addressed before signing the man to huge deal?

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

 

[Spin Doctor]

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

Of course it's an average - I never presented it to be anything other than an average, hence "points per game". if you take overall points and divide ("per") by number of games, you get an average. Points per game IS AN AVERAGE.

"Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average.

If you want stats, then please look at the stats of the NFC Championship game, first half. Explain to me how digging that large a hole helped us win the game, and explain how our super-efficient offense kept the ball from Green Bay. Because what I saw is that if Green Bay had been able to convert their opportunities they would have stomped us. Our defense kept us in the game which allowed the miraculous comeback to happen.

Also please provide an explanation for how our passing game in the first half of the Super Bowl was consistent with the idea of establishing and maintaining a lead. Because what I saw was a QB who made rather poor choices, never utilized his tight ends, missed open receivers, and looked generally hesitant out there. Once again our defense kept us in the game and allowed a comeback that eventually failed, which is the way when you depend on comebacks to win games (which you shouldn't have to do with the #1 defense if your offense was worth a damn).

There is a very frustrating pattern of Wilson starting slow and digging a hole for us. Is it too much to want to see that addressed before signing the man to huge deal?

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

See, that statement could be seen either way. People who have been around since the Holmgren years are used to an offensive biased philosophy. The Seahawks were constantly in the top 10, closer to the top 5 during the Holmgren era. That could be a major source of disdain among Seahawk fans who were around during the Holmgren era.

 

[BadgerVid]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

 

[hawknation2015]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

I doubt that. It's more advantageous to the team to get Russell to sign a five-year extension vs a four-year extension. Five years, ~$115 million would save the team more money in the long run than four years, $80 million. I say that because in four years the market value for a Top 10 QB will be approaching $30 million per year.

The actual issue is whether the last year should be excluded, as they have done with all of their recent extensions, so that they can ease into the salary increase by taking the prorated signing bonus during the final year of his rookie deal. It's not really a question of years; from the team's perspective, the more years the better.

 

[Anthony!]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

Agreed especially given what Cam is about to get.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Did anyone forget that Baldwin scored a touchdown on Revis? It seems like everyone did.

Russell has a lot of room to grow. I thought he struggled for most of the first two quarters because he was very clearly pressing. Which I saw all year long.

I like somebody posting the GIFs. I would prefer a GIF that shows the whole field and the whole play from both views, or at least an explanation of what happened on those individual plays in the totality of the play rather than just the lil bit that looks bad. And that last GIF is textbook D by the Pats, not sure how that shows Baldwin beating anyone.

I know Fahey uses All-22. To be fair, he wasn't analyzing Wilson in that article, he was analyzing Revis. His conclusion was that Revis is getting older and slower and Baldwin pretty much beat him all day.

Given that his CB analyses are considered the best you will find online and he's rather well known in NFL circles for it, and given that Seahawks fans have no problem at all with his analysis when he's crowned Sherman over Revis every year, I think it's safe to assume he's seen the tape and knows what he's talking about when he says it was Wilson, not Revis, that shut down Baldwin.

Kearly's point that Wilson put up some pretty good numbers anyways, and your point that Baldwin caught a TD are definately worth noting.

But we're still left with the fact that Wilson didn't go to Baldwin when he was open and Wilson had a lot of time to throw. I've watched that Super Bowl just recently and we sure had a hard time passing the ball for quite a while there when it turns out we really shouldn't have.

Oh and for the record so the fanboyz who can't hold a conversation that says anything but Wilson is the best EVAH don't start calling me a hater, I've posted some pretty heavily discussed threads in which I took the stand that Wilson should get paid. I still think we pay Wilson, but that doesn't make him perfect. this isn't about his contract, this is about his play.

 

[Anthony!]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

I doubt that. It's more advantageous to the team to get Russell to sign a five-year extension vs a four-year extension. Five years, ~$115 million would save the team more money in the long run than four years, $80 million. I say that because in four years the market value for a Top 10 QB will be approaching $30 million per year.

The actual issue is whether the last year should be excluded, as they have done with all of their recent extensions, so that they can ease into the salary increase by taking the prorated signing bonus during the final year of his rookie deal. It's not really a question of years; from the team's perspective, the more years the better.

! we do not know if the last year meaning his last year under his rookie deal is the issue or not, All we have is speculation. It is a question of years look at all their deals they have all been 4 year extension deals

"The Seattle Seahawks have signed Richard Sherman to a four-year, $56 million contract extension. With $40 million of the deal guaranteed,"

"All the numbers are in on Earl Thomas' contract extension. Here is how the four-year, $40.1 million deal for the Seattle Seahawks free safety ."

"Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed,"

They do not want to commit to anyone for more than 4 years.

Heck even Lynch was only 3 years, now years/age might have something to do with it.

"Seahawks signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a new three-year, $31 million contract. Lynch's 2015 earnings will be $12 million -- a $7.5 million signing bonus and"

However all the new deal for Top QBs are 5+. So years is the issue no doubt about it

 

[hawknation2015]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

I doubt that. It's more advantageous to the team to get Russell to sign a five-year extension vs a four-year extension. Five years, ~$115 million would save the team more money in the long run than four years, $80 million. I say that because in four years the market value for a Top 10 QB will be approaching $30 million per year.

The actual issue is whether the last year should be excluded, as they have done with all of their recent extensions, so that they can ease into the salary increase by taking the prorated signing bonus during the final year of his rookie deal. It's not really a question of years; from the team's perspective, the more years the better.

! we do not know if the last year meaning his last year under his rookie deal is the issue or not, All we have is speculation. It is a question of years look at all their deals they have all been 4 year extension deals

"The Seattle Seahawks have signed Richard Sherman to a four-year, $56 million contract extension. With $40 million of the deal guaranteed,"

"All the numbers are in on Earl Thomas' contract extension. Here is how the four-year, $40.1 million deal for the Seattle Seahawks free safety ."

"Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed,"

They do not want to commit to anyone for more than 4 years.

Heck even Lynch was only 3 years, now years/age might have something to do with it.

"Seahawks signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a new three-year, $31 million contract. Lynch's 2015 earnings will be $12 million -- a $7.5 million signing bonus and"

However all the new deal for Top QBs are 5+. So years is the issue no doubt about it

The only reason that is the case is so those secondary players can sign their 3rd contract before they turn 30, which is important for players at their position. Shorter deals increase the amount of money those players can make in the long run.

Signing 20-something-year-old players to longer term deals is almost always an advantage for the team because it means those players will be locked up at a lower salary rate for a longer period of time. That is especially true at a position like QB, with salaries escalating exponentially, because they can play well into their late 30s. If they could sign Russell to a Tyron Smith-type, 10-year deal at the current going rate, the team would jump at the chance. But Russell would, of course, be foolish to do so. He can and will make much more money by approaching free agency as often as he possibly can.

 

[Anthony!]

It appears to me that $100M for 5 years with a decent guarantee would be the reasonable place to go...

Unfortunately, the common rumor is that the 'Hawks are saying "Give us a last year of that slotted 75th pick $1.5M and then you can have $80M for 4 years"...that seems to me disrespect after the effort and results he has shown thus far.

JMO/YMMV

I doubt that. It's more advantageous to the team to get Russell to sign a five-year extension vs a four-year extension. Five years, ~$115 million would save the team more money in the long run than four years, $80 million. I say that because in four years the market value for a Top 10 QB will be approaching $30 million per year.

The actual issue is whether the last year should be excluded, as they have done with all of their recent extensions, so that they can ease into the salary increase by taking the prorated signing bonus during the final year of his rookie deal. It's not really a question of years; from the team's perspective, the more years the better.

! we do not know if the last year meaning his last year under his rookie deal is the issue or not, All we have is speculation. It is a question of years look at all their deals they have all been 4 year extension deals

"The Seattle Seahawks have signed Richard Sherman to a four-year, $56 million contract extension. With $40 million of the deal guaranteed,"

"All the numbers are in on Earl Thomas' contract extension. Here is how the four-year, $40.1 million deal for the Seattle Seahawks free safety ."

"Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed,"

They do not want to commit to anyone for more than 4 years.

Heck even Lynch was only 3 years, now years/age might have something to do with it.

"Seahawks signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a new three-year, $31 million contract. Lynch's 2015 earnings will be $12 million -- a $7.5 million signing bonus and"

However all the new deal for Top QBs are 5+. So years is the issue no doubt about it

The only reason that is the case is so those secondary players can sign their 3rd contract before they turn 30, which is important for players at their position. Shorter deals increase the amount of money those players can make in the long run.

Signing 20-something-year-old players to longer term deals is almost always an advantage for the team because it means those players will be locked up at a lower salary rate for a longer period of time. That is especially true at a position like QB, with salaries escalating exponentially, because they can play well into their late 30s.

Really so the FO called you and told you they only did those so they can sign another contract before they turn 30? Really. Sorry while I would like to agree with you, I do not. IT is to the Teams best interest to sign them longer turn to save money. Yet they did not. I am not buying that they did that for the players and yet now are talking all about the team. Sorry no. Yes lets sign them for less now and then in 4 years have to resign them for more. Yeah ahh no.

 

[hawknation2015]

I doubt that. It's more advantageous to the team to get Russell to sign a five-year extension vs a four-year extension. Five years, ~$115 million would save the team more money in the long run than four years, $80 million. I say that because in four years the market value for a Top 10 QB will be approaching $30 million per year.

The actual issue is whether the last year should be excluded, as they have done with all of their recent extensions, so that they can ease into the salary increase by taking the prorated signing bonus during the final year of his rookie deal. It's not really a question of years; from the team's perspective, the more years the better.

! we do not know if the last year meaning his last year under his rookie deal is the issue or not, All we have is speculation. It is a question of years look at all their deals they have all been 4 year extension deals

"The Seattle Seahawks have signed Richard Sherman to a four-year, $56 million contract extension. With $40 million of the deal guaranteed,"

"All the numbers are in on Earl Thomas' contract extension. Here is how the four-year, $40.1 million deal for the Seattle Seahawks free safety ."

"Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed,"

They do not want to commit to anyone for more than 4 years.

Heck even Lynch was only 3 years, now years/age might have something to do with it.

"Seahawks signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a new three-year, $31 million contract. Lynch's 2015 earnings will be $12 million -- a $7.5 million signing bonus and"

However all the new deal for Top QBs are 5+. So years is the issue no doubt about it

The only reason that is the case is so those secondary players can sign their 3rd contract before they turn 30, which is important for players at their position. Shorter deals increase the amount of money those players can make in the long run.

Signing 20-something-year-old players to longer term deals is almost always an advantage for the team because it means those players will be locked up at a lower salary rate for a longer period of time. That is especially true at a position like QB, with salaries escalating exponentially, because they can play well into their late 30s.

Really so the FO called you and told you they only did those so they can sign another contract before they turn 30? Really. Sorry while I would like to agree with you, I do not. IT is to the Teams best interest to sign them longer turn to save money. Yet they did not. I am not buying that they did that for the players and yet now are talking all about the team. Sorry no. Yes lets sign them for less now and then in 4 years have to resign them for more. Yeah ahh no.

Use your logic. Other than avoiding future holdouts and limiting some risk in the event of injuries, why would it be advantageous for the team to allow its star players to enter free agency more quickly? The answer is it wouldn't be.

We exchanged the disadvantage of a shorter contract for the advantage of tacking on the extension to the end of these players' rookie deals.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

First of all, screw you. No really, I mean things I would get banned for calling you and worse. I hope you get banned for violating site rules. I really do.

I've been a Seahawks fan since 1979, have been posting online regarding them since the 90's, and have been a member of this particular forum through all of its evolution. I was one of the early members of alt.sports.football.pro.sea-seahawks when usenet was the thing and web forums were in their infancy.

So don't give me crap about not being a fan just because my opinion differs from yours.

It's because I am a fan of this team that I have high standards for the performance of this team. We have been burned in the past overpaying for players who in the end were not worth their inflated contracts. When Mike Holmgren took over this team, we had $13 million in dead money (a hell of a lot on those days) that hog-tied him and allowed Bob Whitsitt to undermine his credibility as a GM which eventually led to infighting and a dysfunctional front office that resulted in such atrocities as Jerry Rice wearing #80 and Steve Hutchinson being transitioned rather than franchised, which in turn shut our Super Bowl window after the farce that was XL. Brian Habib, Kevin Glover, Darrin Smith, and Darryl Williams acounted for the majority of that dead cap space, just to prove how little I know about the Seahawks, being a non-fan and all...

So don't give me crap about being cap-conscious, because I lived through those days and know exactly how destructive a cap situation can be to a team.

As to the top 10 statement, it's true - we're #10, which is closer numerically and statistically to #16 than it is to #1. The league has 32 teams, so "Top 10" doesn't really mean all that much. Means we're in the top 3rd, but we're on the cusp of the middle 3rd.

When you compare that to a defense that is #1, being #10 on offense is just average. Anyone who says that one part of our #10 offense is THE reason for the team's success, ignoring all of the other players on that #10 offense PLUS all of the players on the #1 defense, is not looking at the situation rationally.

Wilson does have issues. He's not all hospital visits and touchdowns. His domestic situation is less stable, he's divorced his wife, he's dealing with the complexities of real fame for the first time in his life, and on the football field he's starting slow and being indecisive, then playing sandlot ball extending the play far past the routes as they were drawn. Those are all red flags to me, and I would like to see them addressed before forking out a hefty percentage of our cap which could impact our #1 defense. which is one of the major factors of our recent success.

If all that offends you, piss off, IMHO.

 

[Anthony!]

! we do not know if the last year meaning his last year under his rookie deal is the issue or not, All we have is speculation. It is a question of years look at all their deals they have all been 4 year extension deals

"The Seattle Seahawks have signed Richard Sherman to a four-year, $56 million contract extension. With $40 million of the deal guaranteed,"

"All the numbers are in on Earl Thomas' contract extension. Here is how the four-year, $40.1 million deal for the Seattle Seahawks free safety ."

"Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed,"

They do not want to commit to anyone for more than 4 years.

Heck even Lynch was only 3 years, now years/age might have something to do with it.

"Seahawks signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a new three-year, $31 million contract. Lynch's 2015 earnings will be $12 million -- a $7.5 million signing bonus and"

However all the new deal for Top QBs are 5+. So years is the issue no doubt about it

The only reason that is the case is so those secondary players can sign their 3rd contract before they turn 30, which is important for players at their position. Shorter deals increase the amount of money those players can make in the long run.

Signing 20-something-year-old players to longer term deals is almost always an advantage for the team because it means those players will be locked up at a lower salary rate for a longer period of time. That is especially true at a position like QB, with salaries escalating exponentially, because they can play well into their late 30s.

Really so the FO called you and told you they only did those so they can sign another contract before they turn 30? Really. Sorry while I would like to agree with you, I do not. IT is to the Teams best interest to sign them longer turn to save money. Yet they did not. I am not buying that they did that for the players and yet now are talking all about the team. Sorry no. Yes lets sign them for less now and then in 4 years have to resign them for more. Yeah ahh no.

Use your logic. Other than avoiding future holdouts and limiting some risk in the event of injuries, why would it be advantageous for the team to allow its star players to enter free agency more quickly? The answer is it wouldn't be.

We exchanged the disadvantage of a shorter contract for the advantage of tacking on the extension to the end of these players' rookie deals.

You just said it " limiting some risk in the event of injuries," add to that avoiding what Bennett is doing right now. That is why. Lets be real the way the LOB plays 4 years might be it, same with Lynch. They appear to be taking the same tack with Wilson you here have even said you do not know if he will last more than a few more years. Bad pass blocking oline, needing to run etc. You can argue all you want but the proof is in the contracts they have signed. To date they have been unwilling to go more than 4 years, regardless of the reason that is what they are doing. Wilson wants more than 4 years.

 

[hawknation2015]

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

First of all, screw you. No really, I mean things I would get banned for calling you and worse. I hope you get banned for violating site rules. I really do.

I've been a Seahawks fan since 1979, have been posting online regarding them since the 90's, and have been a member of this particular forum through all of its evolution. I was one of the early members of alt.sports.football.pro.sea-seahawks when usenet was the thing and web forums were in their infancy.

So don't give me crap about not being a fan just because my opinion differs from yours.

It's because I am a fan of this team that I have high standards for the performance of this team. We have been burned in the past overpaying for players who in the end were not worth their inflated contracts. When Mike Holmgren took over this team, we had $13 million in dead money (a hell of a lot on those days) that hog-tied him and allowed Bob Whitsitt to undermine his credibility as a GM which eventually led to infighting and a dysfunctional front office that resulted in such atrocities as Jerry Rice wearing #80 and Steve Hutchinson being transitioned rather than franchised, which in turn shut our Super Bowl window after the farce that was XL. Brian Habib

So don't give me crap about being cap-conscious, because I lived through those days and know exactly how destructive a cap situation can be to a team.

As to the top 10 statement, it's true - we're #10, which is closer numerically and statistically to #16 than it is to #1. The league has 32 teams, so "Top 10" doesn't really mean all that much. Means we're in the top 3rd, but we're on the cusp of the middle 3rd.

When you compare that to a defense that is #1, being #10 on offense is just average. Anyone who says that one part of our #10 offense is THE reason for the team's success, ignoring all of the other players on that #10 offense PLUS all of the players on the #1 defense, is not looking at the situation rationally.

Wilson does have issues. He's not all hospital visits and touchdowns. His domestic situation is less stable, he's divorced his wife, he's dealing with the complexities of real fame for the first time in his life, and on the football field he's starting slow and being indecisive, then playing sandlot ball extending the play far past the routes as they were drawn. Those are all red flags to me, and I would like to see them addressed before forking out a hefty percentage of our cap which could impact our #1 defense. which is one of the major factors of our recent success.

If all that offense you, piss off, IMHO.

 

[hawknation2015]

Wilson wants more than 4 years.

Where did you get this idea from? It would cost him money and contradicts his own agent's philosophy in the value of reaching free agency as early and often as possible.

 

[Anthony!]

Wilson wants more than 4 years.

Where did you get this idea from? It would cost him money and contradicts his own agent's philosophy in the value of reaching free agency as early and often as possible.

His agent used the term log term deal and being with the Haws for the long term.

 

[hawknation2015]

Wilson wants more than 4 years.

Where did you get this idea from? It would cost him money and contradicts his own agent's philosophy in the value of reaching free agency as early and often as possible.

His agent used the term log term deal and being with the Haws for the long term.

So you pulled "Wilson wants more than 4 years" out of thin air. :34853_doh:

 

[Anthony!]

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

First of all, screw you. No really, I mean things I would get banned for calling you and worse. I hope you get banned for violating site rules. I really do.

I've been a Seahawks fan since 1979, have been posting online regarding them since the 90's, and have been a member of this particular forum through all of its evolution. I was one of the early members of alt.sports.football.pro.sea-seahawks when usenet was the thing and web forums were in their infancy.

So don't give me crap about not being a fan just because my opinion differs from yours.

It's because I am a fan of this team that I have high standards for the performance of this team. We have been burned in the past overpaying for players who in the end were not worth their inflated contracts. When Mike Holmgren took over this team, we had $13 million in dead money (a hell of a lot on those days) that hog-tied him and allowed Bob Whitsitt to undermine his credibility as a GM which eventually led to infighting and a dysfunctional front office that resulted in such atrocities as Jerry Rice wearing #80 and Steve Hutchinson being transitioned rather than franchised, which in turn shut our Super Bowl window after the farce that was XL. Brian Habib, Kevin Glover, Darrin Smith, and Darryl Williams acounted for the majority of that dead cap space, just to prove how little I know about the Seahawks, being a non-fan and all...

So don't give me crap about being cap-conscious, because I lived through those days and know exactly how destructive a cap situation can be to a team.

As to the top 10 statement, it's true - we're #10, which is closer numerically and statistically to #16 than it is to #1. The league has 32 teams, so "Top 10" doesn't really mean all that much. Means we're in the top 3rd, but we're on the cusp of the middle 3rd.

When you compare that to a defense that is #1, being #10 on offense is just average. Anyone who says that one part of our #10 offense is THE reason for the team's success, ignoring all of the other players on that #10 offense PLUS all of the players on the #1 defense, is not looking at the situation rationally.

Wilson does have issues. He's not all hospital visits and touchdowns. His domestic situation is less stable, he's divorced his wife, he's dealing with the complexities of real fame for the first time in his life, and on the football field he's starting slow and being indecisive, then playing sandlot ball extending the play far past the routes as they were drawn. Those are all red flags to me, and I would like to see them addressed before forking out a hefty percentage of our cap which could impact our #1 defense. which is one of the major factors of our recent success.

If all that offends you, piss off, IMHO.

what a load of hog wash. New vote for worst post of the century. When that 1 person make sup 74% of the offense then yes. Noone said Wilson is the sole reason for our success, he is just the one player that has the most to do with it. All the rest and all you constant BS about slow start and all is that BS as you still cannot say for a fact if it is Wilson, the game plan, the play calls or any other payer, All you know it is your chance to try a lame attempt at pointing fingers at Wilson. I understand why you took that so personally the truth hurt by the person you responded to was right on.

 

[Anthony!]

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

Of course it's an average - I never presented it to be anything other than an average, hence "points per game". if you take overall points and divide ("per") by number of games, you get an average. Points per game IS AN AVERAGE.

"Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average.

If you want stats, then please look at the stats of the NFC Championship game, first half. Explain to me how digging that large a hole helped us win the game, and explain how our super-efficient offense kept the ball from Green Bay. Because what I saw is that if Green Bay had been able to convert their opportunities they would have stomped us. Our defense kept us in the game which allowed the miraculous comeback to happen.

Also please provide an explanation for how our passing game in the first half of the Super Bowl was consistent with the idea of establishing and maintaining a lead. Because what I saw was a QB who made rather poor choices, never utilized his tight ends, missed open receivers, and looked generally hesitant out there. Once again our defense kept us in the game and allowed a comeback that eventually failed, which is the way when you depend on comebacks to win games (which you shouldn't have to do with the #1 defense if your offense was worth a damn).

There is a very frustrating pattern of Wilson starting slow and digging a hole for us. Is it too much to want to see that addressed before signing the man to huge deal?

I'm not trying to get in on this debate, because true Seahawk fans who were fans during the lean years would obviously appreciate what our team has done the last few years...people that whine and complain about the offense are most likely on these blogs pretending to be Seahawk fans with the sole intent of trolling REAL Seahawk fans. I find it hilarious the logic used by fake fans..." "Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average." Think about the logic behind this statement...to anyone being completely honest, being 10th in offense MEANS THAT THEIR OFFENSE IS A TOP 10 OFFENSE. But only a Seahawk hater would twist that Top 10 offense moniker and call it average. Average is 15th to 18th!!!10th is Top 10!!!

I haven't been on this site for long, but it didn't take me long to figure out that Seahawks.net has been infiltrated by a few trolls/Seahawk haters. Any one who makes a positive post about the Seahawks is belittled at some point and argued with. Congratulations fake fans!!!

You are correct there are a lot of trolls, haters and fake fans here. Thankfully there are a lot of real fans here.